State v. Gingras, 162 N.H. 633

Defendant Timothy Gingras was convicted of reckless conduct, criminal threatening, and criminal mischief after a jury trial in Superior Court.
On June 26, 2009, Gingras followed Mangini after a traffic incident, slapped the hood of Mangini’s car, and jumped onto the hood.
Gingras then withdrew and pointed a handgun at Mangini as Mangini approached the driver's window, threatening to shoot if Mangini did not back away.
Mangini called 911; police arrested Gingras shortly thereafter.
On appeal, Gingras challenges only the criminal threatening and reckless conduct convictions, arguing double jeopardy, failure to give self-defense jury instructions, and improper deadly-force instructions.
The court reverses these two convictions and remands for a new trial on those charges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Double jeopardy under state/federal constitutions	Gingras argues both offenses require identical proof.	Gingras contends the elements differ and each offense needs distinct proof.	Under both state and federal grounds, there is a difference in required elements; convictions reversed.
Self-defense jury instruction on deadly force	State argued defendant’s deadly force claim should be considered; instruction necessary.	Defendant sought a full deadly-force definition despite no firing of weapon.	Trial court erred by not giving full deadly-force instruction; prejudice to defense; reversed.
Proper scope of deadly force definition	Court should instruct on deadly force to avoid confusion with deadly weapon.	Reading full RSA 627:9 II allowed to capture non-discharge by pointing a gun as non-deadly.	Full definition required; without it, jury could conflate deadly weapon with deadly force; reversal.
Relationship between deadly weapon and deadly force instructions	Jury could infer deadly force from deadly-weapon instruction alone.	No evidence of discharge should not preclude deadly-force analysis.	Instructions must separately define deadly force; erroneous omission prejudiced defense.

State v. Farr, 160 N.H. 803 (2010) (double jeopardy and constitutional analysis framework)
State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226 (1983) (state constitutional approach; independent of federal guidance)
State v. Glenn, 160 N.H. 480 (2010) (difference-in-evidence test for same-offense analysis)
State v. McGurk, 157 N.H. 765 (2008) (elements-focused approach to multiple offenses)
State v. Ford, 144 N.H. 57 (1999) (difference in evidence test for double jeopardy)
State v. Liakos, 142 N.H. 726 (1998) (analysis of indictments and elements)
State v. Sanchez, 152 N.H. 625 (2005) (transactional overlap does not defeat separate elements)
State v. McMinn, 141 N.H. 636 (1997) (self-defense evidentiary burden and standard)
State v. Bruneau, 131 N.H. 104 (1988) (distinguishing theory of defense from theory of the case)
State v. Drake, 155 N.H. 169 (2007) (standard for reviewing jury instructions)
State v. Pierce, 152 N.H. 790 (2005) (statutory interpretation; words given effect)
State v. Kousounadis, 159 N.H. 413 (2009) (deadly weapon vs. deadly force distinction)
State v. Johnson, 157 N.H. 404 (2008) (instruction adequacy; standard of review)